28 DISCUSSION ON TWO PRECEDING PAPERS. 



Society, and I mention this matter now because I think the same committee could look into 

 this question also, and I think it certainly would be worthy of attention as much as the ques- 

 tion of the subdivision of hulls. 



The Chairman : — We will not have time to discuss the suggestion made by Mr. Gard- 

 ner that a committee be appointed, as that is a matter which may better be taken up and de- 

 termined by the Council. 



Mr. H. L. Des Anges, Member (Communicated) : — I am very grateful to Mr. James 

 Donald for his paper on the application of the subdivision rules, which not only the Society 

 but the public at large have been in need of for some time. I have been a strong advocate 

 of this principle, it has been exemplified in all of the designs which I have been associated 

 with during the last twenty years, and I have regretted that there has not been a more gen- 

 eral recognition of the principle. 



In looking over the new rules prescribed by the Steamboat Inspection Service of the 

 Department of Commerce, I have regretted to note that they have given so much attention 

 to what might be considered the cure rather than the prevention — as the old adage ran : "An 

 ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," the cure being the forcing of life-saving 

 appliances, which they had adopted, to an irresponsible or an unseaworthy vessel. 



T am sure the Society should be complimented upon the acquisition of this paper, and I 

 extend my personal thanks for the efforts of its author. I heartily commend his suggestions. 



The Chairman : — If there is no further discussion, we will call for the closing by the 

 authors. Mr. Chamberlain is not present, but we will be pleased to hear from Mr. Donald 

 in closing the discussion on his paper. 



Mr. Donald : — In reply to Mr. J. Rowland Gardner's inquiry in regard to permeabil- 

 ity, I used the factors of permeability as outlined in the International Conference. In re- 

 ply to his question asking my opinion as to the practical correctness of these factors, we 

 have just heard from Admiral Capps as regards the question of permeability, and I agree 

 with him that there will be in most cases a safety factor if the recommendations of the In- 

 ternational Convention are carried out. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the factors 

 suggested are practically correct. 



I am quite in agreement with Professor Sadler when he draws attention in the first paper 

 to Mr. E. T. Chamberlain's suggestion to have a staff of well-trained naval architects to 

 work with the Department of Commerce, in carrying out the requirements of the Interna- 

 tional Convention. Instead of going to the trouble and expense of getting up detailed rules 

 for subdivision, load line, and seaworthiness of ships for every possible trade, I believe more 

 satisfactory results would be obtained by having a small staff of trained naval architects 

 to investigate and make recommendations for all types of vessels submitted for approval. 



There might be general rules provided by the authorities in charge of the inspection of 

 steam passenger vessels, but in detail this small staff of trained naval architects would have 

 authority to pass upon and approve the subdivision and arrangement of vessels. 



Before I left London, about two weeks ago, I had an interview with Naval Constructor 

 McBride, who was associated with Admiral Capps on the commission in London, and he 

 mentioned, as Admiral Capps has done, the importance of Article X of the International Con- 

 vention, an article which refers to the case where the degree of safety of a vessel is greater 



